 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
The best is the Wall Street Journal's, not available online. So:"I wouldn't be surprised if the lifeform known as George Lucas, weary of trying to recapture the joyous spirit of long ago, had secretly cloned himself..."
"For all its videogame bedazzlements, [II] suffers from severe digital glut, periodically relieved, if you can call it that, by amateur theatrics."
"The too-muchness of the movie as a whole dulls the brilliance of its best accomplishments. Now that those special-effects wizards at [ILM] can do anything under our sun or any other, they do everything -- every single or multiple thing they can think of to thicken the visual texture."
.....................................................................
Then, the Boston Phoenix: An excerpt from towards the end: "As for the special effects, they're pyrotechnical wallpaper backing some of the worst dialog written by human or machine."
ONE-STAR WARS
By Peter Keough
Is George Lucas the world’s worst filmmaker? His last two Star Wars entries display all the ineptitude of an Ed Wood but none of the innocence, and the latest, the long-awaited Episode II Attack of the Clones, falls to new depths of narrative incoherence, torturous banality, and acting incompetence. Why, then, will it make about $40 million by tomorrow morning? Because, though a lousy director and writer, Lucas is nonetheless an evil genius, able to tap into, if not the Dark Side, then the Dumb Side, clouding weak or at least willing minds to his product’s fraudulence.
And give him credit, he knows how to tap into the zeitgeist as well. The opening sequence culminates in the explosion of a terrorist bomb intended to kill former queen and current senator Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman, swapping the regal kabuki carapace for a Britney Spears navel-baring look). Separatists — remember that riveting backstory about taxes and trade routes from Episode I? — want to break up the republic, and Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), the John Ashcroft of his day, secretly hopes to turn the emergency to his advantage, raising an army of the republic for homeland security. Miffed by this is disgruntled former Jedi master Count Dooku (Christopher Lee). In perhaps the film’s only attempt at depth and ambiguity, neither Palpatine nor Dooku is as good or evil as he seems.
And so on. It all appears a ruse to get the future Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker (dud Hayden Christensen), away from Jedi mentor and wet blanket Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and alone with the lovely Padmé. He’s sent to her home planet, Naboo, to be her bodyguard while Obi-Wan checks out a lead on the assassination attempt. Jedis, of course, are not permitted to love (no human emotions are allowed in a Lucas film, only their simulation), but on what look like sets from The Student Prince Anakin woos Padmé in cinema’s most embarrassing courtship since Ben Affleck played with animal crackers on Liv Tyler’s tummy in Armageddon.
Fortunately, Lucas has no notion of dramatic structure or narrative coherence, so this mushy stuff ceases abruptly when Anakin decides he must visit Shmi (poor Pernilla August), the mother he left behind on Tatooine, since he hasn’t seen her in 10 years. He meets for the first time his stepbrother, his stepbrother’s girlfriend, and her mother’s new husband. Shmi has been captured by the Comanche-like Tuskens; stepdad has recently lost a leg. "We’ve got to talk," he says.
Indeed. So much for character development and graceful exposition, though the detour allows to Lucas indulge in a belabored allusion to The Searchers that underscores how far, far away we are from the galaxy of John Ford. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan has discovered that some 10 years back, a now-deceased Jedi master ordered, without the council’s knowledge, a million-man clone army. Now delivery is about due. Did someone steal his credit card?
Okay, nobody said this had to make immediate sense — maybe we should just have faith that everything will fall into place with Episode III, in a resolution that Lucas himself modestly describes as "symphonic." On the plus side, too, there’s not much of Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) or any of the other puerile alien/racial stereotypes from The Phantom Menace. But there’s also nothing that gets your attention the way those annoyances did. And as for the special effects, with a few exceptions they’re pyrotechnical wallpaper backing some of the worst dialogue written by human or machine.
Any actor would be stymied by this crap. Harrison Ford took the right approach with his sardonic seriousness; his presence is missed. But Portman, McGregor, Lee, and Samuel L. Jackson as Jedi cipher Mace Windu haven’t got a chance. The only performer who does credit to the script is Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), and he’s a special effect. He puts in a hell of a show when he dukes it up with Dooku, bouncing off the walls like a superball (round two in the wizard wars for Lee, who went mano-a-mano in The Lord of the Rings as Saruman versus Ian McKellen’s Gandalf), his lightsaber flashing. And he brings true menace to his rebuke of an over-optimistic Obi-Wan Kenobi near the end. "Victory? Victory? Begun this Clone War has!" I have a bad feeling about who’s going to win.
........................................................
Finally, Boston's Weekly Dig: An excerpt: "At some point, someday, some one with the chutzpah to stand up to George Lucas will tell him point-blank that dialog matters. Lines like "I've been dying a little bit each day since I met you. Because... I... I... love you", are unacceptable."
by Orion Smith
Is this film better than Episode I? Absolutely. Does it measure up to the original trilogy? Almost. The general plot continues as Anakin and Obi-Wan are sent to investigate an assassination plot on Senator Amidala. Similar to Empire, Episode II (which takes place 10 years after Episode I) concentrates on major battle scenes, further exploration of The Force, and throws in some rather unexpected plot twists as well.
Lucas made an excellent choice of Hayden Christensen to play the teenaged Anakin Skywalker. Christensen portrays the young Darth Vader just as a young, brash brat who sees more promise in rebellion than in peace. Natalie Portman rehashes her warmed-over Senator Amidala character, who seems to become weaker with each passing installment in the trilogy. McGregor continues as Obi Wan and Samuel L. Jackson finally gets some decent screen time as Mace Windu, using some of his bad-ass attitude skills picked up from Pulp Fiction.
The acting in Episode II is surprisingly strong despite the heavy-handed lines that occasionally draw snickers from the audience. At some point, someday, some one with the chutzpah to stand up to George Lucas will tell him point-blank that dialog matters. Lines like "I've been dying a little bit each day since I met you. Because... I... I... love you", are unacceptable. However, many compliments are owed to his animation teams. Yoda's fight sequences (yes, Yoda) could easily have been a flop, but succeeds wildly. John Williams' score is also worthy of commendation. Mixing strong new pieces such as “The Love Theme" with staples like “The Imperial March" only serve to bring evocative character to a film that often suffers from lead-weight dialog.
Follow Ups:
*** Disclaimer: I haven't seen "Clones" yet...but critics and friends I trust have forewarned me that it has all the flaws of Phantom Menace...we'll see****Some of the Star Wars fans seem to get upset at criticism of the new movies. If you didn't like Phantom Menace/Clones then "you aren't really a fan," or "don't understand Star Wars/What George is trying to do," or you're "not twelve years old - Lucas' target audience."
Those excuses don't wash with me. I am a fan of the series. I saw Star Wars in the theater about 30 times, and the sequels many times as well. Still, when I saw Phantom Menace I didn't carry the weight of the "Star Wars Legacy" with me; I just wanted to be entertained.
To my surprise, I was checking my watch soon into the flick, wondering when it was going to end (in a Star Wars Movie!!???) Like others around me, I was squirming in my seat, groaning through one of the worst movies I have ever seen. All of Lucas' (and SW fan's) excuses and explanations for that movie cannot erase that familiar bad taste that poor filmmaking leaves in your mouth. I'm seeing the same type of excuses for "Clones," which doesn't bode well.
I think what made Phantom Menace such an acutely squirm-inducing experience was that we, the audience, were made aware of the big dramatic/emotional targets that George had set up throughout the movie. And we had to wince as over and over George missed the target. (Yet another example, I keep reading, is the ill-executed "romance" in Clones).
Also, it's incredible how the "new" George Lucas can take excellent actors and squash the talent and personality out of them. He even turns the vibrant Samuel Jackson into a mirthless, monotone zombie. Now THAT is a feat no other director has pulled off, and one that no amount of raspberry awards can properly honor.
The original SW series managed, against all odds, to hit every emotional/dramatic note and beat right on target, while using the effects as a backdrop. Phantom Menace turned that all around, screwed it up, and just plain sucked.
I'd have more hope for Clones, but it seems George is a stubborn SOB who is unlikely to change.
Rich H
(One thing though: I find the effects to be mind-blowing. Especially what I've seen in the new Clones trailers.)
If you're not a fan, you probably won't care for it. I will say that all the negative chirping of the critics is exaggerated. The dialogue was no worse than the dialogue in "Spider-Man". Hayden Christensen was good as an arrogant and emotionally screwed up teenager(just as he was in "Life as a House".) Visually the film is near overwhelming at times. Plot-wise it's a bit of a letdown because there's no big payoff at the end because of its place in the sequence. Yoda was just cool. People were laughing with delight(myself included)during Yoda's lightsaber scene.Not as good as "Fellowship of the Ring". If I were to put FOTR at 10 on a scale from 1-10, "Attack of the Clones" gets a 7.5, and "Spider-Man" about a 6.
I like to add that Lucas made the film intriguing and worthwile for second viewing and thoughts. When the kid picks up Jango Fetts' helmet, is he the clone, Bobba Fett? A lot of follow up and questions unanswered for Lucas to add in the third episode. I think this is what Star Wars is all about- the anticipation from us and of human nature, regardless of plot. A lot of characters barely developed. And Yoda was like a spinning top, LOL.I think the great battles are for the home theatre enthusiasts, for the effects and action. Nonetheless, this film can't be praised for it's cinematography and finesse. It's a flick, or saga...
Yeah, that's Boba. Lucas tossed fans quite a few little tibits in this one. Got to see the couple(Owen and Beru) who raised Luke. Got to see the hated Jar-Jar proposing the amendment giving Palpatine too much power.I even enjoyed seeing Anakin get zapped by Dooku. Little snot had it coming. ;-P
Lord of the Rings (9)
Spider-Man (8.5)
Original Star Wars (8)
Empire Strikes Back (8)
Return of the Jedi (& Ellie Mae's furry friends) (6.5)
Phantom Mensa (4)
Attack of the Groans (5)> > > "If you're not a fan (of Star Wars) you probably won't care for it." < < <
That's "probably" an assumption most die hard fans employ to blunt criticism. Perhaps I'm atypical of those who consider themselves fans of the original movie, but I sincerely doubt it. As you can see by the subjective ratings I've given the series, I have a much stronger appreciation for the earlier movies. Does that make one a fan or not? Well, I am a fan of good filmmaking above all else (i.e., that includes direction, acting, dialogue, plot, pacing and, in service to the plot, believeable special effects).
> > > "I will say that all the negative chirping of the critics is exaggerated." < < <
Not at all! Many of the negative critical reviews were dead on! If the criticism had been favorable my expectations would've been far greater and my disappointment that much worse.
IMHO, the Star Wars series jumped the shark some time ago.
Respectfully,
Your friendly neighborhood AuPh :o)
I'd rate the original Star Wars(still my favorite) and Empire Strikes Back above Attack of the Clones, too. Return of the Jedi(I didn't like the Ewoks, either) falls below Attack of the Clones for me. Phantom Menace is at the bottom, but I'm sure I liked even that one better than you did. The fight scene with Darth Maul at the end of Phantom Menace was the best choreographed of any of the series. And I've always been an Obi-Wan fan, so seeing the young Kenobi(well-played by Ewan McGregor) has been a treat in the new films.
I haven't seen Clones yet but in regards to Menace I too really enjoyed seeing the young Obi (played well). He was always my favorite character. It's pretty much the only reason (along with Yoda) that I'll go see Clones.
We took our son to the local cineplex to see the latest epic from George Lucas yesterday. Whenever I glanced at him during the film, he had the same eyes glazed over look he gets when playing Nintendo-certainly appropriate given the CGI nature of the film. I was shopping at Fry's last week, and they had a display of DVD's near the checkout counter-one was the Black Stallion for 9.99. This has always been a favorite of mine, so I picked it up. We watched it together last night, and it was fascinating to observe his reaction to the fine performance of the child actor Kelly Reno-he smiled at the bonding of the boy with the horse, winced in fear at the shipwreck that strands them on the island, etc. He asked to watch it again on Sunday- a request that was not made of Attack of the Clones.Sometimes they're a lot smarter than we give them credit for...
for him to watch? Kind of makes it hard for him to watch it at home if you don't have the DVD. But I guess when the movie does come out on DVD, you'll make the choice for him. Kelly would be proud, I'm sure.Please excuse me, I'm a swellin' up with tears... sniff, sniff, cough, cough... vomit!
He did make the choice, not me-he saw both films on the same day and obviously made an emotional connection with the Black Stallion that was simply not possible with the soulless, mechanical Clones. If he wants the DVD of SWII for Christmas (and he's been nice, not naughty) I'll get it for him (We have Phantom Menace at home).I'm a big fan of the the original, BTW-particularly episodes 4 & 5. There isn't a single character in 1 & 2 that can even begin to approach the charisma of Han, Luke & Leia, and all the "wow look at this" CGI can't cover it up, BTW. Not to mention the awkward, clunky, hole-ridden plot. Lucas gets one more chance to redeem himself-given the gravity of the subject matter of SW3, I hope he puts down the pen and hires some decent screenwriters.
through this entire ordeal is that the critics/reviewers do not care for Lucas/SW for many reasons. They don't understand the hoopla, the hype, the entertainment/escapism/fantasy element, etc. And they don't get "it", if you know the "it" I'm talking about. Every SW movie, except for Episode IV, goes the same way -- *Lucas movie goes into production, lots of hype, first reviews are "wow", then we get the same load of crap negative reviews on all the forums, the movie makes zillions, etc. Enough already! I think Micheal Coate summed it up the best -- enjoy 2 1/2 hours of entertainment, why don't you!By the way, the next SW movie will see a repeat of the above *.
ps. Glad your kid liked TBS. I've seen the movie twice and it is an emotion machine -- well written, acted and filmed (sincerely, no BS).
There is a cadre of reviewers who bash Lucas just for sake of bashing Lucas. Speaking as someone who admires his early work (I went to the theater to see the original 7 times in 77, the summer after I graduated from high school) I feel that his creative vision would be best served if he farmed out those areas in which he is weakest, to allow him to concentrate on the overall canvas. The Empire Strikes Back certainly wasn't harmed by having Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett help with the script, and Irwin Kirshner direct!
Great observation. You need to get them while they are young. We sort of missed that moment with our daughter, so she is more Nintendo than I would like... not 100%, mind you, just more than she should.
A hilarious review, the first one. I nearly got hysterical while reading it, but then the reality hit me hard - as he said: "Lucas is nonetheless an evil genius, able to tap into, if not the Dark Side, then the Dumb Side" and I stopped laughing.Truth is - America feels entitled to at least one Titanic per year. Any less - it gets angry. So each year we get at least one. This year it is going to be the SWXX... big deal.
The real question is: in the meantime, is our Dumb Side the same year after year, or is it actually getting stronger and well, dumber with each new Titanic?
I think we ARE dumbing down.
proves the old saying, "Some people will watch ANYTHING."
It seems that sales of "The Phantom Menace" DVD are being energized, big time, by the new Star Wars movie "Attack of the Clones".There isn't a copy to be had in retail outlets !
In talking to a Best Buy employee, the previous week to the new films release, there were 40 copies of the DVD sitting on the shelves....
since the release of the new film, there wasn't a copy of it at four retail outlets I went to searching for it!Sounds good ! People and fans are responding the new film well !!!!
Hmmm, better clear that up a little:
:
Which proves the old saying, "Some people will watch ANYTHING."
:
is MY comment not Yahoo!'s
review. Enough said.
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, manage.
Those who can do none of these become critics."
Robert Benchley - noted writer, actor,
humorist, cynic, and critic.
So I trust you're not just a useless reader?clark
Lucas movie goes into preduction, hype builds, critics/reviewers see film prerelease, a few good "words" are spoken/printed, onslaught of bad reviews, forums post "have you seen the reviews" / "the reviews are in", movie opens to make zillions, etc.George Lucas dreamt about making a space-fantasy movie a long time ago, in a consciousness far, far away. He has not only brought that dream to life on the big screen, he has followed it with extensions of that dream. I'm sure he has surpassed even his wildest imagination as to how far this "dream" would take him. At the same time he has made millions upon millions of dollars. He can do whatever he wants because he is George Lucas.
How many reviewers can say this about their dream? And, who in their right mind grows up dreaming about cutting to bits the hard work of another? Most reviewers wouldn't know a great film if it bit them on the ass and fed that flesh to them. They'd rather pick apart every nook and cranny of a film, piece of art or product just to prove that its creator is "still" human. What a bunch of lifeless losers.
In this area, we get a section in the Friday newspaper called the "Lagniappe" section. It contains about 20 pages of entertainment information. I always look at the movie section to see what's playing and read the reviews. The reviews that say a movie isn't worth seeing is usually what I see first. So far I'm "batting a thousand".
I go to the show to be entertained by subjects that I'm interested in -- not to be educated, not to see how closely the movie follows the book, not to see the greatest story ever told. Movies are to escape into another world, to entertain and to suspend belief and reality. They are not made to impress critics/reviewers -- at least not the movies that are worth seeing.
If you don't like the Star Wars movies, George Lucas or a combination of the two, don't go see them and don't review them. And the excuse of "I'm a reviewer. It's my job." is not acceptable -- get another job. But first, you need to get a life.
Thank you for that.The first injunction is of course a sheer impossibility. The second would lead to Pollyannaish writing: "I just *loved* this movie!" Don't we hate that in audio reviewing? Aren't the mags always getting ripped for publishing only favorable reviews? Yet along come people who can't take the heat when some scribbler tells what he saw.
Remember, everyone: Reading is for both amusement and information. Movies are pure amusement. Should they fail in that endeavor, I want to be forewarned.
clark
clark
before you realise that GL and/or SW is not your cup of tea?> > > The first injunction is of course a sheer impossibility < < <
There have been 5 movies now. If after the first two you're not impressed, why go back? "It's my job" is not acceptable. I'll tell you why: the majority of critics/reviewers can't enjoy a movie. They are stuck here and will (probably) never leave. Sad, but true. Michael Coate has some valuable information in his recent update.
There's nothing I'm going to say that will make you change your feelings on this subject (hell, I see it IS your job!). And of course there's nothing you can say to change my mind. Want the last word -- it's yours. Read it twice -- once for you, once for me.
.
***If you don't like the Star Wars movies, George Lucas or a combination of the two, don't go see them and don't review them. And the excuse of "I'm a reviewer. It's my job." is not acceptable -- get another job. But first, you need to get a life.This is as silly as it gets. One needs to experience that - well, film - to know he hates it. I didn't see the first one or perhaps even the second one - forgive me for not praying to the list - but when the - I believe the third one - came out, I went. I think it was around 1981 or so, so I am sure you would know which one I was mistoftunate to see.
If I didn't - how would I know just what kind of "film" that was? Problem was, I read many reviews and I thought it was something worth seeing, that is why I went. I even took my kid with me.
It is perfectly right, and even much more - important!, to call junk junk, as one sees it. Thank God for people like Michael Medved, or we all would be just reading the Ebert "stuff".
> > > One needs to experience that - well, film - to know he hates it. < < <This is film number 5 in the series. If you -- by "you" I'm referring to the critic/reviewer -- think your mind is going to change about George Lucas or the Star Wars movies after seeing the first 4, you're quite the optimist. You need to put the SW movies into the right perspective -- what audience is Lucas mainly targeting? I'll give you a hint: it's NOT the reviewers/critics. The point I'm making is this: if you are a reviewer/critic and you don't like Lucas and/or the Star Wars films, do NOT review them. If you were a food critic and you hated eggs, why would you get anything that contained eggs when you went in to a restaurant to critique it? "Hi, my name is Mr Reviewer. I don't like Star Wars movies and I don't like George Lucas. That said, let me tell you about Attack of the Clones". Kinda stupid, isn't it.
> > > I think it was around 1981 or so, so I am sure you would know which one I was mistoftunate to see. < < <
Around 1981 -- was it 1980? -- would have been "The Empire Strikes Back". Of all the SW films, this got the most "praise". If you are off by 2 years (1983), then it would have been "Return of the Jedi".
Still a no-go on the first one. Reviewing is not about finding films (equipment, music, wine) you would be inclined to like only.You seem to be blowing that "I hate Lucas" out of proportion. I do see a lot of trash made by those I hate, and sometimes you fid something in them that is entertaining, interesting, original, etc. And yes, your food critic must try eggs from time to time to make sure he is not simply following some old and perhaps wrong impression - we all grow and change.
But the bottom line - someone MUST write bad reviews about bad films, or it is not fair to all of us.
Which one did I see? Hell if I know. It was one of the two you mentioned, I am sure.
.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
I suspect she did - she was only 6 or so at the time. She was just an excuse for me to see it.She is not going to see the latest one.
Vic,While I will agree that Star Wars: Episode II is not exactly Nevsky or Rashomon, Lucas has been very important for one important reason;
He opened my eyes at the age of 7 to the wonderful world of film.
I was fairly sheltered as a kid, but movies changed that for me. Yes, I read a lot as a kid and was totally seduced by the dark side (television), but movies were always numero uno!
If not for Lucas, I never would investigated Kurosawa, Ford, Eisenstein, Capra, Wilder, etc...
I got so into samurai stuff thanks to Lucas that I took up Kendo as an adult. I went out and bought every book that I could find on Kurosawa, and the other directors listed above and read. I've seen so many "good" Japanese movies, that I can't bother to waste time on the anime crap that everyone likes today.
I began to read mythology thanks to Lucas and became more interested in politics and still consider Orwell to be my favorite author.
While Sarah might hate the 3,000+ recordings in my music collection, she loves the fact that we have hundreds of movies and that is something that we both share. She can't stand Lucas either, but she does laugh a lot when I come out of the shower imitating the Emperor in Jedi...So be it...Jedi"
He's done a lot for movies, and that is more than I can say about the majority of modern directors.
Tosh
Well said.
Where is our scale? Where is the proportion?His contribution was in making a rather entertaining film that blazed some new trails - the original SW. A somewhat notable contribution, yes, but more than a "majority"? Cut me a break.
The "majority" could of course be as bad as you want it to be, and in that context you may be right. But by saying this you are ignoring perhaps hunderds of great directors who have done perhaps many times more for the film industry.
Lucas should have left after the first one, as this apparently was his level of incompetency.
But you know what? Lucas doesn't concern me much at all. He is simply a barometer, or our rectal thermometer, if you will. His films - and their HUGE monetary success - simply indicate the state of health of our society.
The miserable state, to be sure.
What excites us, what grabbs our minds, is getting more and more primitive every decade. If you look at that people went to see and enjoy in say, the fifties, and compare it to what the wide audience sees today you will see what I mean.
We slid from Ninochka to Titanic in just few short - VERY short in any historical tirms - years.
If that is not a sign of decay then I don't know what is.
However, we are sliding down on a logarithmic scale, meaning that we are never going to hit the bottom.
Instead, the quality of films that get us going is going to contnue getting more and more ridiculous.
Yes, going ga-ga over something like SW is ridiculous, degrading thing for ANY society.
But not sliding into home!N. is one of the funniest movies ever made, and not a single joke! I wonder if your critic Mr. Murphy has ever seen it. And if he had read how good it be, would he have therefore put it at the bottom of his to-see list?
clark
There IS one joke in it - dontcha remember the "coffee without milk" - it is hilarious by any standard.A wonderful film with many underlining things, some of which will escape the casual viewer the first time around. Shame - the director didn't even get a nomination!
I simply picked it as the first great old film that came to my mind. Without a question there have been others, but one thing is for sure: if we look at the trend in our (using this losely... ) viewing tastes, there has been a horrible slide.
From films to video games. Some day we will have a direct wire into our brain from the monitor, and popcorn will be fed intravenously.
Vic,I think you are missing the point about Lucas. Anyone who watches the Star Wars films and thinks that he can direct, clearly hasn't seen too many good films. Lucas is not even a good storyteller.
Star Wars pushed boundaries that others were afraid to push, in terms of visual effects, sound, animation, set design.
I agree that standards have fallen off of the chart and that we find moronic shit to be entertaining. Star Wars is nothing more than a Saturday morning cartoon with some cool characters and a lot of action and wonderful special effects. Take it for what it is...a cheap thrill.
However, as I said before, Star Wars opened a lot of eyes and in a good way.
Would you prefer that I don't seek out obscure foreign films and only watch the crap that Hollywood comes up with?
I think you also have to divide up films that are entertaining and those that are really above and beyond the norm.
Fine, I consider Rashomon, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo to be some of my favorite films but that doesn't mean that one can't enjoy stuff like Slap Shot, Empire Strikes Back, Bridge on the River Kwai, Great Escape, Stalag 17,....
Movies being a form of art, has a few masterpieces and a lot of dreck. Unfortunately, dreck has been "in" for more than 30 years.
Tosh Medved
neither Vic nor Clark can understand what you are saying. Neither can get off of their high horse and see Lucas and his movies for what they really are -- entertainment. Lucas didn't and doesn't set out to make any of his films Shakespeare, Fitzgerald, Poe, Dikinson, etc. He makes the films that a young George wants to see. He takes his "dreams" and paints them on the big screen to entertain those that want to be entertained. As for paving the way, you're right on this too. Someone had to push the envelope. Someone had to take the risk. He did. I think Michael Coate summed it up best in his Star Wars update...
Did you bother to read my post in which I say the problem is not lucas? No? Lucas is just a mediocre director, no one asks him to be Dikinson, and he doesn't bother me one bit.But... well, just read what I said.
I like that.Tosh, the problem is not that people watch and like films like SW. It certainly has its place in the Universe. It is not the worst film ever made, far from it. Lucas is not the worst director to ever walk this Earth, by far.
The point is the Great Hoopla that surrounds it.
You probably recall how many people comment on what they call "art" film vs. the rest (it is really good films vs. bad ones). They tend to say: "Well, OK, on some days I eat at the best French restaurant, on others I just get a Big Mac!"
Put that way there is no problem. But "just a big Mac" is NOT what we are having here.
Instead we are having people getting dressed up, reserve the tables, hire limo's, all the stuff you normally associate with some ritzy place, only to go and get that dreaded Big Mac.
In other words, like it or not, the SW becomes the "fine cuisine" of 2002 America.
It is NOT what is served, it is how you treat it. And treating this mediocre work as if it were some great event does make it into an event.
It teaches the kids that this "stuff" is what movie making is all about.
So they grow up having watched each episode twenty times, and knowing nothing else.
So the SW would not do any harm to someone who already has some knowledge. But in our time it is pretty much the choice of SW vs. the Titanic vs. the Gladiator...
> > >
But in our time it is pretty much the choice of SW vs. the Titanic vs. the Gladiator...
< < <Vic, I think you still don't get Toshiro; I don't; one would have to be Toshiro. SW is not Titanic nor Gladiator. Its cultural, it associates with the childhoods of alot of people. Its like the Beatles. Its not just about artistry and content. Many Americans appear to like 'Crouching Tigers Hidden Dragons", but if you know the references it makes, and grow up with the stories and epics from which it took excerpts, you will love it the way many love SW. I just saw "Iron Monkey" a few days ago, which if you're not into nor familiar with what Ive said, it would appear extremely odd. For me, it was extremely refreshing. These things are not just summer flicks; Lucas was very elaborate to create this cultural phenomenon.
But why do people seem to love it more than it appears to deserve? Show me a child who grows up with and fatacizing about arts films, I'll show you one who does.
v
George Locas inside the Wicker Man.
nt
;^)
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
